confirm

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does not say whether this mutates game state, whether it is reversible, what happens if no selection exists, or what happens after confirmation. 'Confirm' implies a state-changing commit, but that is inference, not disclosure.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single short sentence with no wasted framing, and the core action is front-loaded. It is terse to the point of under-specification rather than bloated, which is the better failure mode.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and zero parameters means the schema is trivially complete. What is missing is behavioral and situational context: in a sibling set containing 'choose', 'proceed', 'cancel', and 'run_turn', the agent gets no signal on how this call interacts with or differs from them.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond the schema. Baseline for a parameterless tool applies; the parenthetical about grid contexts is a minor extra hint.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a verb ('Confirm') and an object ('the current selection') with a parenthetical hint about grid contexts, so the basic action is identifiable. However, it does not distinguish itself from close siblings like 'choose', 'proceed', or 'run_turn', which plausibly overlap with committing a selection. Reads as adequate but under-differentiated.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to confirm versus 'choose', 'proceed', or 'cancel' is provided. The only contextual cue is the vague 'grid confirm etc.', which does not tell an agent which state or precondition makes this tool the right call over its siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.